Tilt 'N Scan - the new OAR violator (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

Boy, people just love bringing that up, don't they? There's always a selective memory process going on, where they forget that Cameron recanted those statements after he saw the widescreen DVD. THAT is his prefered presentation the last time I saw him discuss the matter. In fact, he approved the non-anamorphicness (is that a word?) of the transfer, IIRC.

Really? Cameron said that? Where did you hear that from? I've been following the "Abyss" aspect ratio issue since before the DVD came out, and it's news to me.

 

[David Lambert]

Carl, I'll apologize for what you just quoted and take those words back. I was being a bit of a know-it-all (see under my name at the left) and said the wrong thing. I've corrected my previous post, based on what I REALLY meant to say, not what I thought I knew.
Here is a post from admin Michael Reuben that speaks exactly to the heart of what I was trying to say. And yes, all my info regarding that comes from here on HTF. There have been other posts along the lines of Michael's...or maybe just others from Michael, and they're all running together in my head.
Aaron, about Evil Dead...I *probably* can object to the reframing on principle, but I haven't seen the movie yet and am not totally convinced yet that I ought to. I've got at least 500 other DVD's I'd like to watch first. 300+ of them already in my possession. So my opinion don't mean anything anyway...not that it would mean more if I wanted to own the film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I am against any reframing of the originally presented AR in any case, unless the original presentation was limited against the director's wishes at the time due to some technical or studio barrier.
That's what makes it tough with Kubrick, because the theatrical presentation differs from the 1.37 we get now, BUT the claim that Kube WANTED 1.37 but simply could get that played in modern cinema due to technical restraints is a compelling and feasible arguement.
I didn't know the new Evil Dead was being cropped.
I bought Fantasia only because it was my only option to get to the material at all, but it editing bothers me quite a bit.
WHO CARES HOW CHEERS WAS FILMED! The PROCESS is not the aspect ratio, the FINAL RESULT is the aspect ratio.
If you film on a circular canvas and then extract a triangle for final presentation, then the circular image means nothing, it's like saying the negative image is the intended visual look. No, it's a step in the process of making the final AR for presentation.
Sometimes that goes all the way to masking at the theater.
That's why opening soft mattes is wrong and that's why 1.78 Cheers is wrong. Interesting to look at if Cheers really was originally filmed in 1.78 (seems BS doesn't it), but not the AR of the originally intended presentation, nor how it was publically displayed A LOT.
Here's a harsh example, I'm sorry for the language. My point will be that publishing is the key, that is presentation to the public.
If I write a book and say "I hate and want to kill n***ers" and it's published and widely sold then that's it. Those words are now with me and that book. I can retract it, but that doesn't take the original language out of the public awareness. So I can later alter, but people will still remember. That now PUBLIC version should continue to be available for public awareness.
In this case an apologetic retraction and edited version could come out at my request to try and be understanding of people's feelings, BUT the original version should still be available in some context at least, and certainly shouldn't be denied as if it never existed. That is a disservice to the public and it morally wrong in an artistic sense to me.
I would be hated and other people have a right to know why I was hated, rather than erase it and act like those outraged people were crazy.
And this is the same with public presentation of ANY art, including film. Altering to a new version is fine, but where is the original? That's the key. Keep it available and you can do any other version you want to.
This doesn't mean that I don't compromise to get to some version of the art by buying whatever version I can get. I just means I'm not very happy when this is the case.
And again I point to my original loophole which is if the artist really did want it presented some other way but was denied that presentation by outside forces, technical or biz. ie, Kubrick possibly.

 

[gregstaten]

For example I saw an episode of "Ellen" where you could hear her voice, but she was not speaking (she was on the far right of the screen, cropped out of the 4:3 version.) Obviously the voice was dubbed in later. The editor counted on the fact that she would be "offscreen" in the 4:3 version.

I've also seen gags ruined because of this. I think it was King of Queens where on the 4:3 image you start with a shot of Doug and Carry in bed. The camera pulls back to reveal that Carry's father is also in the bed. That was the joke. However it is ruined in 16:9 since the father is visible even in the beginning of the shot.

Jim - I doubt the editor counted on the fact she would be offscreen. In all likelyhood, the editor didn't know she would be onscreen in the 16x9 version.

One of the problems with a lot of the widescreen versions of television shows, is that the editor only gets the 4x3 center extraction. He never sees the widescreen image and therefore doesn't know what's there and what isn't. You're right. A LOT of shows are ruined in this way. The timing is screwed up.

To be honest, this concerns me when I think of the next of X-Files coming out in 16x9 on DVD - did the editor cut it in 4x3 or 16x9? I've seen the dailies transfer for one of the season six shows and they were 16x9. But were they in season five? If they weren't, there may be serious timing problems in the shows. The horizontal exits/entrys to the frames are carefully timed. This timing is damaged if the editor cuts to 4x3 unaware of what's going on in the 16x9 wings.

-greg

 

[mark_d]

FWIW - a possible glimpse into the future. There are a couple of kids channels over here broadcast permanent 16:9 anamorphic, regardless of OAR. There are some shows that are obviously 16:9 originals, but the majority are 4:3. Due to my TV's overscan I can't say with any real degree of accuracy, but it looks like the 4:3 original stuff is being broadcast anamorphic 1.66:1

Mark